Kevin Baldeosingh
Parents in T&T generally don't have a high opinion of teachers, and vice-versa. Presumably, teachers who are parents have a lot of cognitive dissonance to deal with.
In a 2004 survey titled Benchmarking Violence and Delinquency in the Secondary School, criminologist Ramesh Deosaran writes: "During our consultations, the teachers complained heavily about parental irresponsibility, non-responsiveness and neglect of their children's school obligations. On the other hand, the parents complained bitterly about the irresponsibility, incompetence, and absenteeism of teachers."
Generally, though, bad parents are more often blamed for what is perceived as bad behaviour by young people. But the ironic thing is that the people doing the blaming usually think bad parenting is good parenting, as determined by research. Thus, most commenters will insist that bad parents don't beat their children enough, even though the research says that licks helps shape exactly the kind of individual they are complaining about: violent, crass, immoral. Of course, the average person will not know about such research but, if they did, it wouldn't change their views. This is because their belief in punishment is so strong that they cannot see what is right in front of their eyes. The most telling example of this I ever came across was a regular radio caller who spoke about the need for licks to produce disciplined children–this mere months after he and his son had come out of jail after serving a sentence for drug possession.
Unsurprisingly, Deosaran also found that the majority of teachers were in favour of corporal punishment. And he himself was hardly more progressive: out of 38 recommendations in the report, eight were punitive and only two child-friendly. For this and other reasons, teachers in T&T are ill-equipped to deal with the problem children who come into the system. Few if any policymakers have even outlined the root causes for children not being academically able.
"Them children just dunce" is the most popular analysis, especially among teachers. But there are, in fact, three main factors which explain why children fail academically. These are (1) cognitive problems; (2) cultural values; and (3) government policies.
The fundamental cognitive issue relates to IQ. No studies exist in T&T, as far as I am aware. But studies in other societies have found that children from lower socio-economic strata have on average lower IQs than middle-and-upper-class children. This is only partly related to poverty, however, since it takes significant stress and poor nutrition to lower IQ. However, poor women are also more likely to be single mothers and to have low birth-weight babies (below five pounds). These are both factors which slow children's cognitive development. By contrast, two-parent and extended families are more likely to have children with higher IQs, simply because these children get more attention and nurturing. The effects of committed parenting can override even poverty.
Additionally, both behaviour and intelligence are shaped by cultural values. This is considered a key factor in the academic and professional success of Asians.
"Asian parents and their children had a set of distinctive attitudes," write education researchers Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom in their book No Excuses.
"They did not think in terms of innate ability. Nor did they see luck or teachers' biases as playing a part in their grades...They believed instead that their academic performance depended almost entirely on how hard they worked ... "
At the other end of the American spectrum, economist Thomas Sowell writing in Wealth, Poverty and Politics notes that in the 1930s black students were admitted on pure merit to several elite schools in proportion to their population, but this ratio dropped from 13 per cent to one per cent between 1979 and 2012.
"None of the usual explanations of racial disparities–genetics, racism, poverty or a 'legacy of slavery'–can explain this retrogression over time," Sowell writes, who attributes the slippage to welfare and Afrocentric ideologies.
Which brings us to government policies. In his book Nationhood From The Schoolbag, Michael Alleyne, who was the chief architect of the 1968-1983 education plan, writes that "political decisions were to override technical considerations and professional advice" in respect to education policies. Historian Carl Campbell in his book Endless Education writes that "Juvenile delinquency on a large scale in secondary schools, particularly government secondary schools, was something which came into being in the 1960s and escalated in the 1970s."
Bad education policy has exacerbated the defects of our society. That is hardly surprising–the cultural attitudes of the masses will naturally be reflected in the education system, and those values include a disdain for intellectual work and a preference for superstition as a solution to problems. But there is one policy which may bear fruit–the creation of Early Childhood Care and Education centres. There is much research showing that an early investment in children pays more dividends than interventions later on.
But whether the ECCEs will make any difference to the deprived children of the upcoming generation depends on whether they adhere to best practice, which includes not focusing on academics. If, however, these centres help children's cognitive development, it could mark the beginning of real social transformation a generation hence.
Kevin Baldeosingh is a professional writer, author of three novels, and co-author of a history textbook.